HMS Bristol 1775 by robdurant - Scale 1:64 - Portland-class 50-gun ship - as built from NMM plans

[robdurant]

Hi all,

 

I've often been very taken by the Joseph Marshall paintings, and in particular by the paintings of the admiralty model of Portland from the bow and stern quarters. (Here in low-res courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

 

 

That led me to explore the National Maritime Museum archives, and I came across the plans for HMS Bristol, her sister ship. That accompanied, with my stumbling upon RIf Winfield's book The 5o Gun Ship, which includes plans for another Portland class ship, Leopard meant I was well and truly smitten. 

 

A good number of plans survive for Bristol on the National Maritime Museum, and so, I figured (probably foolishly) that it would be wonderful to try and create as closely as possible the admiralty model shown in Joseph Marshall's paintings of Portland, but as her sister-ship Bristol. Having completed a model of HMS Diana, the Artois class frigate (as her sister ship Ethalion), and having made my way through a fair bit of Barque Stefano, both of which I have modified a fair bit as I've gone, I'm reasonably confident I'm up to the task of doing this as POB, but the big question is, how to recreate the frames... I don't think I'm up to fully framed yet - that will probably be the model after, so some POB / Joseph Marshall-painting-style-POF mash-up is the aim, with frames showing below the wales, and planked bulkheads above... As I'm designing it, I'm reasonably confident I can make this work, but there'll be plenty of planning before I make any sawdust.

 

So. Right now, I have the following plan as a high res printout - this low-res version is from wikicommons (I couldn't stretch to the £100 license to buy a digital copy) and lots of low-res images. I'll add to the collection as I go. This is enough to begin planning internal structure.

 

The full size plan is in 1:48, and it's stunning! From that tiny snapshot of history where the Admiralty had plans drawn up on completion of a ship, as well as at the beginning of construction - hence the decorations are all drawn out.

 

So. This post is as much as anything a pin in the map - a starting point, and a statement of intent. If you'd like to join me for the journey you're extremely welcome. It'll be slow going, I'm sure, but it should be fun, and if it turns out anything like the picture in my head, it'll be really wonderful in the end  

[robdurant]

The following are the low-res copies that RMG (Royal Museums Greenwich) have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons as public domain images, and I'm putting them here as they'll help me as a reference to refer back to as I continue with the build. 

 

The details of each image are below them, along with a link to the image on the RMG website for those who might wish to purchase a high-res copy. What is immediately apparent is that there's a startling amount of information still available about this ship. When we look closely we realise that there's a history to be unpicked here, as well, since Bristol became a prison-ship in the 1790s and some of the plans below show modification made for that purpose. Clearly some careful study is required. 

 

https://prints.rmg.co.uk/products/plan-for-bristol-1775-j3857?_pos=1&_sid=c2ca144bb&_ss=r 
J3857, ZAZ1751 Plan for 'Bristol' (1775) - 

Scale: 1:48. Plan showing the quarterdeck and forecastle, and upper deck illustrating the cabin arrangements on Bristol (1775), a 50-gun Fourth Rate, two-decker, as built at Sheerness Dockyard. Signed by George White [Master Shipwright, Sheerness Dockyard, 1773-1778].

 

https://prints.rmg.co.uk/products/plan-showing-the-orlop-deck-for-bristol-1775-j3855?_pos=2&_sid=c2ca144bb&_ss=r
J3855, ZA1755, Plan showing the orlop deck for Bristol (1775)

Plan showing the orlop deck for 'Bristol' (1775), a 50-gun Fourth Rate, two-decker, as fitted at Chatham Dockyard as a Prison Ship. Scale: 1:48. Signed by Thomas Pollard [Master Shipwright, Chatham Dockyard, 1793-1795].

 

https://prints.rmg.co.uk/products/plan-of-the-starboard-side-of-the-head-for-bristol-1775-j3853?_pos=3&_sid=c2ca144bb&_ss=r

J3853, ZA1752, Plan of the starboard side of the head for Bristol (1775)

Plan showing the starboard side of the head for 'Bristol' (1775), a 50-gun Fourth Rate, two-decker, building at Sheerness Dockyard. The plan does not provide much information on the timbers used for the construction of the beakhead. Scale: 1:48.

 

https://prints.rmg.co.uk/products/plan-of-the-spar-deck-and-upper-deckof-bristol-1775-j3856?_pos=4&_sid=c2ca144bb&_ss=r

J3856, ZAZ1753, Plan of the spar deck and upper deck of Bristol (1775)

Plan showing the spar deck (quarterdeck, waist, and forecastle), and upper deck illustrating the 'Bristol' (1775), a 50-gun Fourth Rate, two-decker, as fitted at Chatham Dockyard as a Prison Ship. Signed by Thomas Pollard [Master Shipwright, Chatham Dockyard, 1793-1795]. Scale: 1:48.

 

https://prints.rmg.co.uk/products/plan-showing-the-gun-deck-lower-deck-for-bristol-1775-j3854?_pos=5&_sid=c2ca144bb&_ss=r

J3854, ZA1754, Plan showing the gun deck (lower deck) for Bristol (1775)

Plan showing the gun deck (lower deck) for Bristol (1775), a 50-gun Fourth Rate, two-decker, as fitted at Chatham Dockyard as a Prison Ship.Signed by Thomas Pollard [Master Shipwright, Chatham Dockyard, 1793-1795]. Scale: 1:48.

 

https://prints.rmg.co.uk/products/plan-showing-the-gun-deck-lower-deck-for-bristol-1775-j3858?_pos=1&_sid=2820e0460&_ss=r

J3858, ZA1750 Plan showing the gun deck (lower deck) for 'Bristol' (1775)

Scale: 1:48. Plan showing the gun deck (lower deck) for Bristol (1775), a 50-gun Fourth Rate, two-decker, as built at Sheerness Dockyard. Signed by George White [Master Shipwright, Sheerness Dockyard, 1773-1778]. 

 

https://prints.rmg.co.uk/products/plan-showing-body-plan-sheer-lines-with-alterations-and-longitudinal-half-breadth-for-building-br-j3860?_pos=1&_sid=b8053f321&_ss=r

J3860, Plan showing body plan, sheer lines with alterations, and longitudinal half-breadth for...

Plan showing the body plan, sheer lines with alterations, and longitudinal half-breadth proposed (and approved) for building 'Bristol' (1775), a 50-gun Fourth Rate, two-decker. The plan includes a table of mast and yard dimensions. Scale: 1:48.

 

https://prints.rmg.co.uk/products/plan-showing-the-body-plan-stern-board-decoration-detail-with-the-name-on-the-counter-sheer-lines-j3859?_pos=1&_sid=c30fbb098&_ss=r

J3859, Plan showing the body plan, stern board decoration detail with the name...

Scale: 1:48. Plan showing the body plan, stern board decoration detail with the name on the counter, sheer lines with inboard detail and figurehead, and longitudinal half-breadth for Bristol (1775), a 50-gun Fourth Rate, two-decker, as built at Sheerness Dockyard.

Signed by George White [Master Shipwright, Sheerness Dockyard, 1773-1778].

 

And there are more Portland-class images…

 

https://prints.rmg.co.uk/products/inboard-profile-plan-of-portland-1770-hannibal-1779-jupiter-1778-adamant-1780-l-j3574?_pos=3&_sid=178507300&_ss=r

ZAZ1720, Portland (1770); Hannibal (1779); Jupiter (1778); Adamant (1780); Leopard (1790); Leander (1780); Europa (1783)

Scale: 1:48. Plan showing the inboard profile for Portland (1770), and later for Hannibal (1779), Jupiter (1778), Adamant (1780), Leopard (1790), Leander (1780), and Europa (1783), all 50-gun Fourth Rate, two-deckers.

 

https://prints.rmg.co.uk/products/framing-profile-of-hannibal-1779-jupiter-1778-leander-1780-adamant-1780-europa-j3575?_pos=2&_sid=ac99ef27f&_ss=r

And a plan showing framing for Hannibal, Jupiter, Leander, Adamant and Europe - all Portland class ships.

 

That last image is the one that convinces me that a fully-framed model is beyond me... but the lower frames might be possible. We'll see how we go. First up is to get the hi-res images I have so far ready to work from for CAD. Come hither, trusty scanner! As I go, I shall get more of these plans to help the process. I'm assuming that the process will reveal which plans are helpful when. And I love the idea of spreading the cost over the years instead of a single outlay.

 

 

[robdurant]

A little history - Bristol was caught in the great hurricane of 1780, and dismasted along with HMS Hector... the image below is public domain:

 

 

 

There's a particularly lovely model of Bristol in the Art Gallery of Ontario, in Toronto; pictures of which can be found on Wikimedia. The link below from the Art Gallery itself suggests this model was built in 1774, making it contemporary - perhaps even the builder's model. https://ago.ca/collection/object/agoid.106283

 

Edited January 13, 2023 by robdurant

[westwood]

wow very exciting announcement.
I'm bookmarking this project.
I like Bristol very much.
I think Chris Watton is also planning a kit but watching the scratch build is even more fun.
So good luck Rob and I look forward to seeing more photos of this project.

[druxey]

Well, you have a wealth of information available, Rob! That makes for a good start.

[robdurant]

Thank you both. It will be an adventure for sure.

 

1 hour ago, westwood said:

wow very exciting announcement.
I'm bookmarking this project.
I like Bristol very much.
I think Chris Watton is also planning a kit but watching the scratch build is even more fun.
So good luck Rob and I look forward to seeing more photos of this project.

I shall be standing on giants' shoulders for this project as Chris designed many of the kits I have built so far. So much of what I know has been taught by him through his kits. Equally MSW has been a fantastic support and encouragement in my journey so far. 

 

I'm very excited to see what Chris does with Bristol when he designs his kit of her, and equally excited about facing some of the design challenges he makes look so easy for myself. I'm sure I shall get to the end of this process with a deeper respect for what he and all kit manufacturers do. And he will probably be all done long before I am

[Mark P]

Good Evening Rob;

 

I wish you all the best with your project. The model of Bristol in the Ontario Art Gallery has always been one of my favourites. It is also one of the very rare examples where the name of the builder, and the date of the model are known. A note was found inside her, informing posterity that she had been built by George Stockwell, dated 7th May 1774. A further line informs us that he was a shipwright at Sheerness Yard, which is where the Bristol was built, so he presumably knew her very well. 

 

The draught is a beautiful example of art; its rendition of the internal details of the ship is one of the highest quality examples of which I am aware, and it is my intention to purchase a digital copy of the draught one fine day when funds are plentiful.

 

Interestingly, the frieze on the model does not match that shown on the draught. 

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

 

 

[AnobiumPunctatum]

I will follow with great interest. I bought last year also a fully set of the drawings, to plan also a build a model of this beautyful ship

 

[robdurant]

You're very welcome, AnobiumPunctatum. Glad to have you following along. 

 

Thank you for that insight Mark. It's fascinating to hear how much we know about this model. It would have been truly amazing to be a fly on the wall in one of these model builders' workshops.

[robdurant]

Some progress to show. I've started getting the plans into CAD ready to begin designing the skeleton of the model.

 

A long way to go, but it's good to make a start. The actual plans are colorised, with different parts on different layers so I can separate them easily. Near the stern on the half-breadth plan some of the waterlines divide into two lines as they approach the rabbet. I've never noticed that on plans before, so if anyone knows what that represents I'd be interested to know.

 

More soon  

 

Rob

[robdurant]

I spent a few hours working on the station lines yesterday - these are a first draft, but they contain the waterlines and upper and lower deck limits, which should help me double check them against the half-breadth.

One interesting point was that there is an vertical extension to the bulwark at the forward end of the poop deck which allows the height between quarter deck and poop deck to be sufficient to accommodate the ship's wheel without having extreme camber on the poop deck. This extension doesn't show up on the Winfield Leopard 50-gun ship, Leopard plans. (My CAD from RMG plans on left, Winfield on right)

 

The same images are shown below super-imposed: red is the sketch from Winfield, and black, from the Bristol NMM plan. Here, we notice that either the gunport location was slightly different (a matter of different framing?), or the Mizzen mast was moved between Leopard and Bristol, by a few inches (the more likely, I would think.) Nevertheless, the difference in height for the poop decks (between the beams) would have felt pretty significant if you were on the helm all day. 1.86m for Leopard at the centre line, and 1.92m for Bristol, or 6' 1" and 6' 3" in old money. Being 6' 2", I think I would have preferred Bristol!

I also reconciled the mid-point stations for the aft stations (l.h.s of the plans) and the forward stations (r.h.s of the plans), and was concerned that they were miles out - until I realised that I was very zoomed in, and it worked out as a difference of 1.3cm on the full size ship - or 0.2mm on the model. I think I can live with that - a brush of sandpaper, or swipe of the scraper should reconcile the difference!

[druxey]

There were often variances between different ships of ehe same class, so  your finding is not unusual. What program are you using, BTW?

[robdurant]

Just now, druxey said:

What program are you using, BTW?

Thank you Druxey. I'm using QCAD Pro (https://qcad.org) - I used a mac and linux for a good while, and this program is robust and works beautifully on each, but also on Windows which I used now. It has a free version which did the vast majority of what I wanted, but I was so pleased with it, I thought it worth supporting the developers. It can generate dxf files which import into blender, so there's no great problem if you want to take the work and use it for 3D work, too.

[AnobiumPunctatum]

Quote

Thank you Druxey. I'm using QCAD Pro (https://qcad.org) - I used a mac and linux for a good while, and this program is robust

That's good to know. I like to change from Windows to Mac in the future.

 

Quote

The same images are shown below super-imposed: red is the sketch from Winfield, and black, from the Bristol NMM plan.

I have bothe original design drawings for the Alert cutter at home. Also there are some bigger differences. The drawings were handmade and each copy will show other difference. Here you are comparing an old drawing and a modern reconstruction. In this cases I would alway go with the old drawing, if this is possible.

 

[robdurant]

I couldn't resist seeing the model so far jump off the drawing board into real life, so I've started to make a basic paper half-hull mockup at 1:96 scale to get a sense of the lines. At the moment there's no lateral support for the frames, so they're all over the place, but an interesting exercise nonetheless, and adding the poop / quarterdeck / upper gun deck will help matters no end. The deck locations are marked with solid lines and waterlines are marked with dashed lines. This half-hull should help me work out how to go about realising the internal structure.

 

Progress so far... 

 

[westwood]

wow you're off to a good start Rob.
It's great that you are able to make the plans in CAD,
for me it is a totally unknown.

 

[robdurant]

Thanks Dusan,

 

I've been working on the table of offsets. 

 

1. I traced the stations, giving the following table: (note negative values are because I've maintained the right of centre and left of centre frames so I can easily do a visual check of the output with a line graph.)

 

	TRACED FROM PLAN
	Distance from centre (mm, 1:1)
Station	WL0	WL1	WL2	WL3	WL4	WL5
U				735	1476	2268
S		303	1120	2056	3019	3825
Q		921	2068	3202	4162	4820
O		1560	2929	4102	4976	5438
M		2153	3618	4747	5490	5805
K		2775	4218	5207	5784	5972
H		3247	4617	5485	5923	6025
F		3604	4856	5635	5999	6066
D		3787	4975	5688	6014	6066
B		3908	5019	5712	6015	6066
Ø		3990	5065	5737	6015	6066
Ø (bow)		-4001	-5064	-5740	-6031	-6069
1		-3940	-5016	-5724	-6032	-6069
3		-3848	-4949	-5675	-6022	-6059
5		-3631	-4811	-5602	-5992	-6049
7		-3428	-4640	-5486	-5934	-6029
9		-3088	-4394	-5324	-5850	-5976
11		-2541	-4027	-5078	-5692	-5912
13		-2029	-3581	-4754	-5507	-5795
15		-1505	-2997	-4272	-5192	-5591
17		-1062	-2348	-3706	-4805	-5364
19		-718	-1636	-2855	-4236	-5062
21		-434	-981	-1936	-3344	-4582
23		-229	-496	-1050	-2163	-3725
25		-111	-210	-416	-879	-2079
AP

 

The second task was to cross-check these against the half-breadth plan, which gave the following offsets:

 

	Distance from centre (updated by half-breadth) (mm, 1:1)
Station	WL0	WL1	WL2	WL3	WL4	WL5
U				732	1490	2343
S		267	1052	2027	2925	3830
Q		910	2025	3120	4090	4803
O		1535	2878	4001	4922	5435
M		2131	3608	4679	5446	5788
K		2694	4186	5161	5763	5975
H	93	3181	4575	5454	5922	6055
F	960	3563	4826	5620	5983	6080
D	1453	3784	4968	5696	6005	6084
B	1717	3896	5046	5731	6022	6080
(B)	1824	3938	5075	5744	6030	6076
Ø	1845	3930	5062	5741	6024	6048
Ø (bow)	-1844	-3923	-5054	-5739	-6020	-6048
1	-1794	-3868	-4997	-5724	-6003	-6045
3	-1619	-3770	-4904	-5687	-5992	-6038
5	-1342	-3639	-4803	-5630	-5978	-6033
7	-854	-3411	-4641	-5526	-5931	-6024
9	-111	-3055	-4389	-5360	-5845	-5996
11		-2571	-4028	-5118	-5720	-5920
13		-2031	-3562	-4782	-5528	-5795
15		-1492	-2972	-4308	-5220	-5630
17		-1062	-2334	-3704	-4831	-5421
19		-707	-1638	-2883	-4232	-5121
21		-434	-991	-1930	-3307	-4624
23		-235	-509	-1093	-2134	-3670
25		-106	-211	-429	-885	-2042
AP

 

Finally, I copied these back over the plans, and made a few modifications to the U and S stations at WL5 and WL4 so that the stations flowed smoothly.

 

The following changes were made:

U, WL5 = 2190

S, WL4 = 3018, WL5 = 3788

 

The following image shows the original lines traced off the plans in white, and the updated lines taken from the half-breadth in green. As can be seen, the differences are fairly negligible, except at the extreme breadth, where they become a little more significant. The difference amounts to a maximum of 7.7 centimetres at 1:1 scale, so nothing too dramatic.

This image shows some of the differences more closely - cyan is the plan lines, and orange the updated lines from the half-breadth.

The next step is to begin working out framing distances, and lofting the frames using the curves these stations produce...

 

Anyway - that's enough from me for now. Happy building, all.

[robdurant]

So those numbers above have been refined again by cross referencing back and forwards from the half breadth and station plans... I got to the stage where I wanted to see how things fitted together, and particularly the deck levels and openings on the decks, and where the masts land compared to the stations, etc... 

 

So here is a 1:192 styrene half hull in construction. It's only got half its stations in so far, but it's starting to give an idea of how the whole might look.

 

 

 

Edited March 8, 2023 by robdurant

[robdurant]

Progress on the 1:128 mockup from my CAD drawings. I've finished cutting out the stations and added the quarterdeck, fo'csle and poop. It's been a helpful exercise in seeing the lines of the vessel, any conflicts in terms of masts / deck cutouts / etc... Now, it's helping me think through how the stern will be constructed. I'm pleased to say that none of the frames look particularly out, except for one (frame 5) where I suspect I probably cut over the line a little... But now I can go back and take a look at this before I move onto the 1:64 scale version!

 

 

[Javelin]

Very impressive work. Would make for a nice project in itself. 

The shape doesn't look off at all. I'll follow along. 

[robdurant]

26 minutes ago, Javelin said:

Very impressive work. Would make for a nice project in itself. 

The shape doesn't look off at all. I'll follow along. 

Thank you for your kind encouragement.

[Chuck]

That looks pretty darned good.  A lovely project. 

[druxey]

Looking forward to see tis develop!

[robdurant]

Thank you Chuck, and Druxey, and all of you for your likes and encouragement. I've been playing a little with freecad (3D cad, whereas QCAD is 2D), as I discovered I can lift the 2D cad drawings into it and line them up at the correct distances... If I can join these together, I'm hoping it might make defining the difference from front to bad of each frmae inside and out more quickly than the paper and pencil method I've used before... We'll see, but I'm in no hurry, and the learning is fun... Here's the progress so far. 

 

I need to work out how to define the frame at the Aft Perpendicular... I presume this is a case of extending the lines from frame 25 to the transom (these are on the plans) and then seeing where they interpolate. When I get a few hours, I shall make a more concerted attempt, but my battery is dying, so it won't be this evening

[robdurant]

I've spent a little time working on the stern of Bristol to see how it all shapes up... here's my progress. The stern structure was drawn out from the plans, taking care to note how the balcony and accompanying cabin walls fitted, and then the transom was stretched vertically by a factor of 1/Cos(14.2) to make it fit when it was at an angle.

 

Here's the stretched outline... 

 

 

And the part cut out in two parts and glued back to back - the recessed cornice over the cutout was removed on the outer layer, creating a 3d effect - this will be bevelled as well on the final 1:64 model, but as a proof of concept it works.  It's also confirmed that the upper deck (third down in the photo below) comes too far back, and will interfere with the stern upper counter as it is.

 

Happy building to you all

 

Rob

 

 

[Jaager]

These will be random and mostly unrelated thoughts:

 

Bristol was at the end of the 18th century style warships.  the older modelers conventions still have credibility. 

 

Starting about 1780 there was an inflection point in warship design.  There was a long period (1780 - 1815 / 35 years) of near constant warfare with severe stress on both the treasury and resources.  There were major improvements in artillery.  Hull forms began their move from art to efficiency.  The older conventions look out of place.

 

My point?  If you look at Franklin, you will see that many or most of those 17th century models used stylized construction - the ends did not mimic actual prototype timbering.  Corners were cut.

During the 18th century - the old Navy Board framing dropped - but for some if not most of the models, some form of stylized framing was used.  It even extended to carved solid - either painted or full planked.  Some were solid and painted with faux frames. 

 

The first fork is:  for the hull below the wale...   do you do a Bellona style exact engineering class demo model?  or do you opt for a more artful model using one of several modelers conventions?

 

The stern of Centurion -  the vertical structural timbers between the windows had a different and increasing angle depending on their file.  The windows had mullions that were different depending on how far out from the centerline they were.  They were the same on every deck for the file they were in.

 

Your transoms below the wing transom are not tenable.  As a half hull they look OK - but as a P&S together whole, they describe too much of an arch.   There was a fashion timber that was a cant. 

I do not care to futz with a cant frame, so I added a whole bend farther aft to fill where the fashion timber would be.   I see the fashion frame as starting at the deadwood touching your farthest aft bend and angling to the outer end of the wing transom.  My last bend is at the outer point of the wing transom.

 

The inflection transom below the wing transom is at the level of the main gun deck beams.  I made mine wider and carved a land for the deck planks - a wide landing.

 

[Beef Wellington]

Fascinating project Rob, Would love to try my hand at this, suspect its rather addicting and very educational, but the cost of the 3D software is a little beyond my limit...one day!

[robdurant]

Thank you Jaager for.this response, I shall take my time to read through this and digest it. Can I take it that Franklin is a book I should be looking at?

 

7 minutes ago, Beef Wellington said:

the cost of the 3D software

Mine too, Jason, but Freecad is just that... open source and free of cost to the end user.

 

Thank you for your kind words. It is very absorbing, and a nice change from sewing bolt ropes onto sails

[Jaager]

1 hour ago, robdurant said:

Can I take it that Franklin is a book I should be looking at?

 

NAVY BOARD  SHIP MODELS 1650-1750                                
FRANKLIN,JOHN                                                    
US NAVAL INSTITUTE PRESS                     
ANNAPOLIS, MD            
1989

 

The primary focus is on ship models that are 100 years earlier than Bristol. 

But they are at the apex of ship modelers art.  

Probably not much direct help, but the models featured  do show alternatives to an exact replication of every minor construction detail of a ship's innards.

[robdurant]

On 3/25/2023 at 11:58 PM, Jaager said:

NAVY BOARD  SHIP MODELS 1650-1750                                
FRANKLIN,JOHN                                                    
US NAVAL INSTITUTE PRESS                     
ANNAPOLIS, MD            
1989

 

Aah - thank you, my better half has ordered this for my birthday, so I'm looking forward to having a good look through and getting some inspiration. To return to your earlier comments, I've pondered them, and I think I'm looking to get past plank on bulkhead, but with simplified frames... so probably using the stations rather than re-lofting each frame, and with a simplified structure without cant frames at the bow and stern. 

 

I've had another crack at the transom using an angled frame (16 degrees from perpendicular) aft of station 25 - this goes out to the wale. I've re-drafted the transoms and hopefully now it is something more workable... Some pictures... It's not quite perfect yet (and I haven't drafted the inside flow of the transom pieces), but I feel like I'm making progress. It's certainly helpful to be able to make multiple designs and try them all out.

 

 

Thanks again for all your help

 

Rob